I wish we still had the old forums so I could copy/paste my page-long rant about the "war for oil" argument.  Oh well...

True.  However, initially, public opinion overwhelmingly believed that an external force was the source of the problem.  I'm not going to get into the conspiracy theory issue, but if public opinion supports the external aggressor story, that becomes the truth for the purpose of figuring out the course of action.

Holy crap!  And I only recently looked in here again.

Springy?

It works for us, SupAll

Tonight, we shall dine in Hell!

Now, if only I could figure out the pattern going on here, so I could accurately figure out who would come up next... oh well... until that time, I'll just pick a random person.

Spartan!

> Justinian I wrote:

> Haha. Well selection of a Democratic candidate has nothing to do with analysis and merit. Just look at the American election.

And the way the Romans did it was the Emperor selected a younger successor (by adoption), on the basis of merit. He knew who had talent and a good resume in the empire. Not that they were necessarily the best man for the job, but of very high quality nevertheless. There was, after all, a relationship with the Emperor. There wasn't a hiring process, more like a person the Emperor knew, liked, and thought was capable. Still good enough, after all five successive emperors were called "The Five Good Emperors."

And there, you highlight the very flaw of your system: that there is no objective "best" candidate.  Hell, there's not even an objective definition for "decent" candidate.  Notice that there were only five good emperors.  If one emperor screws up, the system goes into a tailspin.

As for the American elections, it doesn't matter that the Presidents aren't the most qualified candidates.  Their staff of advisors, and their organization as a whole, had to plan out the tactics in the election, and are often carried over to the leading government, so you still get the tacticians in power.  Someone had to plan out that election, and there's a pretty good chance that they'll end up in the government when the election's over.

If that's your opinion about research before posting in Politics, then your posts in Politics are a waste of your time in the first place.

@Justinian

Democracy justifies itself because human rights are a means to a better end.  When those rights are guaranteed, people are assured that those rights won't be screwed with, and they can better adapt to stability.

In a system in which human rights aren't guaranteed, the leader may just leave human rights alone as an unofficial rule, so to speak.  However, the risk of lost human rights still exists.

Think of it like when you invest in the stock market.  The more you know will happen in the future, the more accurate your predictions can be.  If you thought the US was about to end up in some recession of one sort or another, you could invest (or not invest) accordingly.  However, if you have no clue of what is going to happen in the US economy, your future action is a dart toss.

In just the same way, human rights act as social regulators.  A good example would be the post you just made.  Now, you live in the awesome US, so you're able to make a post like that without punishment.  The moment that speech starts to get regulated, however, the bright line between what you can and can't say is blurred.  We already see this with pornography regulation in the form of the "I'll know it when I see it" doctrine about defining lewd displays.

NOTE TO SELF: Watch this thread.  Another possible BeebleBrix vs Justinian war... these are always fun

Nope.

SPARTA!

Nope!

Darkmatt?

Yup!

IS THIS SPARTA?

> DPS wrote:

> "Do you guys realize the additional costs that would be incurred if plea bargains weren't around?  Every person who has indisputable evidence against them would still be tried, rather than just pleading guilty, bogging down the legal system meaninglessly.

Sure, those crimes are bad.  But a lack of pragmatic consideration of the situation is pretty bad too..."

This is where we use what I call the bad/worse scenario.  You inform said person that regardless of what they do they will go to jail; the only difference is if they plead guilty they will go to regular jail, and if they fight it they get to go to special jail that will make Auschwitz(sp?) look like a 5-Star Resort.  It may be harsh but these people are criminals; they have no rights and they deserve no consideration.

Um... DPS, that's called a plea bargain.